There are no provisions whatsoever in the United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) that address the issue of ambulatory boundaries
resulting from sea level rise attributable to the Enhanced Greenhouse
Effect, specifically in relation to the normal baseline which is the line
corresponding with the level of low-water, however that is defined.
Although Article 7(2) UNCLOS allows a coastal State to draw straight
baselines along highly unstable coastlines, such as would arise in the
vicinity of a large river delta, and to revise the location of these
baselines from time to time in sympathy with changes in the location of the
coastline/baseline, this is a different issue.

There are several issues which need to be considered.  With regard to Part
VI of UNCLOS, which deals with the definition of the continental shelf, the
350 mile (M) distance constraint line (see Article 76(6)) is measured from
the territorial sea baseline which can consist of normal baseline, straight
baselines or a combination of both.  Where the 350 M distance constraint
line is applicable in locating the outer limits of the extended continental
shelf Article 76(8) makes it quite clear that those limits, as established
by the coastal State on the basis of the recommendations of the UN
Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, shall be final and
binding.  That is, the outer limits of the continental shelf do not ambulate
in sympathy with any movement in the location of the territorial sea
baseline, for whatever reason.

The same provision would apply to internationally agreed boundaries which
have used the normal baseline of one or both negotiating parties in the
definition of the whole or any part of such boundaries, for example
equidistant boundaries.  The positions of such boundaries would be
permanently fixed by the agreed coordinates defining those boundaries as set
out in the treaty documents, irrespective of any subsequent ambulation of
the normal baseline of either one or both of the negotiating parties.

Low-tide elevations, as defined in Article 13 UNCLOS, are perhaps the most
critical features in terms of a rise in sea level attributable to the
Enhanced Greenhouse Effect.  Coastlines with very flat foreshore gradients
are also extremely sensitive to long-term variations in sea-level
attributable to this effect. Under the provisions of Article 5  UNCLOS, the
normal baseline for measuring the breadth of the territorial sea  is the
low-water line along the coast as depicted on large-scale charts officially
recognised by the coastal State.  Where low-tide elevations lie wholly or
partly within the breadth of the territorial sea as measured from the
baseline contiguous to the mainland or to an island, then normal baseline
can be drawn around such low-tide elevations and those elevations then used
for measuring the breadth of the territorial sea.

In the case where a coastal State officially recognises a chart which
identifies low-tide elevations and that chart is replaced at some time in
the future by a new chart based upon hydrographic surveys that now show
those low-tide elevations to no longer exist, then the provisions of Article
5 UNCLOS would still fully apply.  That is, due to the fact that the nature
of these features has changed from that of low-tide elevations to that of
submerged reefs as a result of sea level rise, the normal baseline
associated with these features no longer exists and therefore the previously
generated maritime zones, such as the territorial sea, disappear and the
maritime zone boundaries ambulate landwards (mainland or islands) as a
result.  I again emphasise the provisions of Article 5 UNCLOS.

As far as I know, the situation has not yet arisen whereby a coastal State
has revised the delineation of maritime zone boundaries as a result of sea
level rise and lodged information in relation to such revision with the
Secretary-General, United Nations, in accordance with the provisions of.
Article 16 etc. UNCLOS.  However, this is undoubtedly going to arise in the
future in relation to low-lying island States threatened by sea level rise
and the law has yet to evolve on this issue

Bound up with this issue is the legal doctrine of accretion and erosion
which may, or may not, be attributable to a rise in sea level resulting from
the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect. This doctrine holds that, in order to be
legally valid, such accretion and erosion must be gradual and imperceptible,
and not artificially induced.


Brian Murphy


GeoFix Pty Ltd
ABN 98 084 393 353
4/115 Crisp Circuit
Bruce   A.C.T.   2617
Australia
Phone:  +61 2  6251 5312
             +61 2  6253 3500
Facsimile: +61 2 6253 5800
Mobile: 0419 422502


----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Pratt" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 6:02 PM
Subject: FW: sea level change and UNCLOS


> I would be interested in hearing colleagues' thought in response to the
> enquiry below. My understanding is that states _would_ be obliged to
> pull back their maritime limits if relevant basepoints became
> submerged - but have any states which are vulnerable to sea-level rise
> attempted to argue that they should be allowed to retain their existing
> limits under such circumstances?
>
> Regards,
>
> m a r t i n
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: 28 August 2001 04:50
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: sea level change and UNCLOS
>
> I gave a workshop on the Law of the Sea and AGSO - Geoscience
> Australia's role in Australia's UN submission to some senior teachers at
> a conference in Melbourne recently and the matter of sea level change
> was hotly debated. Questions were asked about the implications of future
> sea level changes to the location of maritime boundaries around
> coastal states and the impact of sea level change to submissions on
> extended continental margins that extend beyond EEZs. I would love to be
> able to pass on some useful information to these teachers.
>
> Although predicted sea level changes are relatively minor, I would think
> that countries with very flat, low-lying coastal areas would be most
> affected by increasing sea levels because their land area would decrease
> as the territorial baseline moved inland. Would the size of the island's
> surrounding EEZ also decrease or is the location of a country's EEZ
> boundary
> (and other territorial boundaries eg. territorial baseline, territorial
> sea, contiguous zone etc) 'locked in' at the time of signing UNCLOS and
> remains unchanged, no matter what happens to future sea levels and the
> location of its coastline?
>
> Also, what happens to coastal states that are composed of small islands
> if one or more of those islands goes underwater (as is the risk in the
> Pacific and, perhaps, the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea). Does
> the EEZ stay as it was before the inundation or does the EEZ shrink
> accordingly? (an aside - what happens to coastal states that extend
> their coastline
> artificially far out into the ocean eg. in Japan?).
>
> With regard to the extended continental margin, is there pressure for
> countries to submit the technical data that defines the outer limit of
> their outer margin prior to sea level changes?  I know they have 10
> years from the date of signing UNCLOS but maybe they are under more
> pressure due to sea level changes. Or maybe I am completely on the wrong
> track. I've checked the Law of the Sea documentation and many other
> sources and can't seem to find
> any reference to the matter of sea level change.
>
> Any advice that you can give would be greatly appreciated!
>
> Many thanks
>
> Cindy
>
> ********************************************************************
> Cindy Hann
> Education Officer
> Communications Unit
> AGSO - Geoscience Australia
> cnr. Jerrabomberra Ave. and  Hindmarsh Dve
> Symonston ACT
> G.P.O. Box 378
> Canberra ACT 2601 Australia
> ph: (02) 6249 9673
> fax: (02) 6249 9977
>
> AGSO - Geoscience Australia
> ABN 80 091 799 039
> AGSO Website: www.agso.gov.au
> ********************************************************************
>
>
> ==================================
> Martin Pratt
> Research Officer
> International Boundaries Research Unit
> Mountjoy Research Centre, Suite 3P
> University of Durham
> Durham DH1 3UR
> United Kingdom
>
> +44 (0)191 374 7704 (direct line)
> +44 (0)191 374 7702 (fax)
> [log in to unmask] (email)
> http://www-ibru.dur.ac.uk (World Wide Web)
> ==================================
>